David Allan. Torrey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 18, 2019

14031236 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/031,236 09/19/2013 David Allan Torrey 269920-1 7280
6147 7590 07/18/2019
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
1 RESEARCH CIRCLE
K1 - 3A59
Niskayuna, NY 12309
EXAMINER
KRAMER, DEVON C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3746
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
preisman@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID ALLAN TORREY and
DEEPAK ARAVIND1
____________________

Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–4, 9, 11–16, and 20–22, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 General Electric Company (Appellant) is the applicant as provided in 37
C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to motor-driven pumps, and
more particularly, to a system and method for converterless operation of
motor-driven pumps.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Appeal
Br. 14–16 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A converterless motor-driven pump system comprising:
at least one off-grid prime mover comprising a driveshaft
and operating in response to a throttle control command to
control a rotational speed of the driveshaft;
at least one electric permanent magnet power generator
driven directly or indirectly by the driveshaft of the at least one
off-grid prime mover to generate AC power, the permanent
magnet generator not requiring an excitation controller;
at least one variable speed motor directly or indirectly
electrically coupled to the at least one electric power generator;
at least one electric submersible pump directly coupled to
the at least one variable speed motor, wherein the pump
comprises a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure
of the pump; and
a system controller receiving a signal representing the inlet
pressure of the pump from the pressure sensor, the system
controller generating and transmitting the throttle
control command to the at least one off[-]grid prime mover to
selectively adjust the rotational speed of the at least one off-grid
prime mover to ensure that the at least one electric submersible
pump is operating at a desired operating point.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–4, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pettigrew (US 7,170,262 B2, issued Jan. 30,
2007), Hollinger (US 7,411,310 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2008),
Abdel-Rahman (US 5,108,264, issued Apr. 28, 1992), and Owen
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

3
(R.L. Owen et al., Hybrid Excited Flux-Switching Permanent
Magnet Machines, IEEE 2009).
II. Claims 13–16 and 20–222 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, Owen, and
Bearden (US 6,167,965 B1, issued Jan. 2, 2001).

DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent
claims 2–4, 9, 11, and 12, apart from their dependence from independent
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–11. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the
basis of claim 1, and claims 2–4, 9, 11, and 12 stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim
to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims
argued together).
The issue presented in this appeal is whether it would have been
obvious to modify Pettigrew to provide a pressure sensor for measuring an
inlet pressure of Pettigrew’s electric submersible pump for feedback to
Pettigrew’s system controller. See Appeal Br. 10–11; Final Act. 3–4; Adv.
Act. 2; Ans. 10, 11–12; Reply Br. 2–5.
The Examiner determined that the combined teachings of Pettigrew,
Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, and Owen render obvious the subject matter of
claim 1. See Final Act. 3–4. In pertinent part, the Examiner found that

2 Although claim 16 is not included in the statement of the rejection on
page 6 of the Final Action, the detailed explanation of the rejection discusses
claim 16 on page 8 of the Final Action.
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

4
Pettigrew discloses a sensor for monitoring an electric submersible pump
and a system controller that receives a signal from the sensor representing
parameters of the pump and generates and transmits a throttle control
command to the prime mover (the engine) to selectively control the
rotational speed of the prime mover “to ensure that the at least one electric
submersible pump is operating at a desired operating point.” Id. (citing
Pettigrew 4:41–45; 5:38–43. The Examiner found that Pettigrew “discloses
sensors for monitoring the pump,” but does not specify “the location of the
sensors” and does not clearly teach a “pressure sensor specifically.” Id. at 4;
Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner found, however, that “Abdel-Rahman teaches
pump inlet pressure sensors providing feedback to a controller” and
determined it would have been obvious to modify Pettigrew to provide
sensors at the pump inlet “for the purpose of monitoring pumping fluid
density.” Final Act. 4 (citing Abdel-Rahman 2:68–3:8; 4:66–5:1).
The Examiner also found that it was well known in the art “that
monitoring pump pressure and flow and adjusting the motor parameters to
control these are standard practice.” Adv. Act. 2. Appellant does not
specifically contest this finding. See Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–5. The
Examiner added that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
the placement and utilizing the pressure sensor of [Abdel-Rahman] would
provide more precise control and safety in a pump system.” Adv. Act. 2.
Appellant asserts that “interpret[ing] Pettigrew as having a sensor that
measures the pressure at the pump inlet is an impermissible use of hindsight
reconstruction.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant acknowledges that Pettigrew
discloses that the system controller monitors sensors “at the pump itself” and
interfaces with the engine throttle device and the excitation controller to
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

5
adjust the speed of the electric motor based on monitored readings from the
sensors. Id. However, Appellant contends that “there is no mention in
Pettigrew that the ‘sensors’ comprise a pressure sensor that measures an inlet
pressure of the electric submersible pump, only that the sensor is ‘at the
pump itself.’” Id. Appellant’s contention is consistent with the Examiner’s
findings, in that the Examiner found that Pettigrew discloses using
monitored readings from sensors at the electric submersible pump, but did
not find that Pettigrew discloses “any particular type of sensor measuring at
any particular position” at the pump. See Ans. 11. Thus, Appellant’s
assertion of hindsight is inapposite because it is premised on an
interpretation of Pettigrew not taken by the Examiner.
Appellant asserts “that, based on the teachings of Pettigrew being
directed to a voltage output of the multi-tap electrical generator being
controlled by the excitation controller to provide the appropriate voltage
required by the electric motor, the correct interpretation is that the sensors
would measure voltage, rather than inlet flow.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
does not provide any technical reasoning or evidence to support this
assertion. For the reasons that follow, we find nothing in Pettigrew that
supports this assertion.
Pettigrew discloses a power system that includes an engine that drives
a generator for powering an electric submersible pump. Pettigrew 4:20–24.
Pettigrew’s “engine includes a throttle that is regulated by the system
controller.” Id. 4:27–28. The system controller “includes programmed logic
circuits, which monitor operation of the system and control the throttle on
the engine.” Id. 4:41–43. Pettigrew expressly discloses that “[i]n the case of
the electric submersible pump, the system controller would monitor pump
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

6
operating conditions.” Id. 4:43–45. Pettigrew explains that “[t]he system
controller interfaces with the throttle device and the excitation controller to
monitor, control and regulate the desired operating parameters of the electric
motor” to “adjust[] the speed based on monitored readings and the desired
operating conditions of the motor for any one particular drive unit
application.” Id. 5:35–41. Notably, as acknowledged by Appellant,
Pettigrew specifically discloses that “[t]he monitored readings can be from
sensors at the motor or in the case of an electric submersible pump, at the
pump itself.” Id. 5:41–43 (emphasis added). Clearly, Pettigrew’s system
controller uses monitored readings from sensors at the electric submersible
pump to control the engine throttle and the excitation controller to regulate
the voltage output of the generator supplied to the electric submersible
pump. Further, the sensors at the pump each likely generate, either directly
or indirectly, a voltage signal that is supplied to the programmed logic
circuits of the system controller. However, this does not in any way imply
that the sensors measure voltage, as opposed to generating a voltage
representative of other operating conditions of the pump, such as inlet
pressure.
Appellant asserts that the claimed invention is directed to an “electric
submersible pump with a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure of
the pump, not a mechanical, bi-directional, reciprocating pump as in Abdel-
[Rahman],” and, ‘[t]hus, one skilled in the art would not look to the
teachings of Abdel-[Rahman] and be motivated to modify Pettigrew, as
asserted by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant points out that
Pettigrew is directed to solving the problem of eliminating a variable speed
drive between a generator and a motor that drives an electric submersible
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

7
pump while, in contrast, Abdel-Rahman solves the “problem of significantly
reducing ‘pumping and flow noise in reciprocating pumps by taking into
account the pressure and temperature dependency of the compressibility of
the pumping fluid.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant emphasizes that Abdel-
Rahman’s sensors “provide feedback to an electronic pump speed controller
that controls the pump drive motor rotation angle and the corresponding
stroke of two pistons . . . to accommodate” for “the compressibility of the
pumping fluid, the adiabatic heating of the pumping fluid during
compression, variations in pumping fluid density, leads in the check valve
. . . or cylinder piston seals and the primary and secondary switching losses
in the fluid flow occurring when the piston reverses direction.” Id.
In response, the Examiner points out that Appellant’s Specification
does not specify “what kind of pump is being claimed other than that of an
electric submersible pump,” nor does the recitation of an “electric
submersible pump” in claim 1 exclude a reciprocating pump, which may be
electric. Ans. 11–12. According to the Examiner, “one of skill will
recognize that many electrically driven submersible pumps are reciprocating
pumps such as the pump of Abdel-[Rahman].” Id. at 12; see Abdel-Rahman
2:7–9 (disclosing controlling the angle of rotation of a reversible drive motor
to vary the stroke of each piston); id. 5:1 (disclosing an “electronic pump
speed controller”). Appellant does not specifically refute the Examiner’s
position in this regard.
Moreover, even assuming that (1) the compressibility (or variability of
compressibility) of the fluid to be pumped is not of concern in Pettigrew and
(2) Abdel-Rahman’s pump speed controller uses the pump inlet pressure
sensor only to accommodate for the compressibility of the pumping fluid,
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

8
this does not undercut the Examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to include a pump inlet pressure sensor in Pettigrew as one of the
disclosed sensors at the pump for providing readings to the system controller
for monitoring pump operating conditions. In particular, the Examiner states
that “[i]t is also extremely well known in the art that pressure sensors,
especially suction/inlet sensors are used to monitor pump performance for
control and preventative maintenance schedules.” Ans. 11. Appellant does
not dispute the Examiner’s statement. Notably, claim 1 recites only that the
“system controller receiv[es] a signal representing the inlet pressure of the
pump from the pressure sensor” and generates and transmits the throttle
control command to the prime mover to adjust the rotational speed of the
prime mover “to ensure that the at least one electric submersible pump is
operating at a desired operating point.” See Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Claim 1 does not require the system controller to do anything with, or based
on, the received signal representing the inlet pressure of the pump.
Appellant also argues that because Pettigrew’s engine speed is
controlled by a throttle device and Abdel-Rahman’s sensors all provide
feedback to an electronic pump controller, “[t]here is no structure in
Pettigrew that can support or incorporate Abdel-[Rahman]’s sensors.”
Reply Br. 4. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above,
Pettigrew discloses a system controller for receiving signals from sensors at
the pump. Thus, if Pettigrew were modified to have a pump inlet pressure
sensor, as proposed in the rejection, such a sensor would provide feedback to
the system controller.
For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to modify
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

9
Pettigrew to provide a pressure sensor for measuring an inlet pressure of
Pettigrew’s electric submersible pump for feedback to Pettigrew’s system
controller and, thus, fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as
dependent claims 2–4, 9, 11, and 12, which fall with claim 1, as
unpatentable over Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, and Owen.
Rejection II
In contesting the rejection of independent claim 13, and claims 14–16
and 20–22 depending therefrom, Appellant relies solely on the arguments
presented against the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12. For the
reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in
the rejection of claim 1 and, likewise, fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection of independent claim 13.3 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 13, as well as claims 14–16 and 20–22, for which
Appellant does not present any separate arguments apart from their
dependence from claim 13 and which, thus, fall with claim 13, as
unpatentable over Pettigrew, Hollinger, Abdel-Rahman, and Owen, and
Bearden.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 9, 11–16, and 20–22 is
affirmed.

3 Like claim 1, claim 13 requires a system controller to receive a signal
representative of an inlet pressure of the pump, but does not require the
system controller to do anything with, or based on, the received signal
representing the inlet pressure of the pump. See Appeal Br. 15 (Claims
App.).
Appeal 2018-008073
Application 14/031,236

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED